Friday, January 31, 2014

Politico reports on the GOP “immigration
principles” – caving on amnesty -- as of yesterday afternoon.

The House Republican leadership is
trying to sell their colleagues on a series of broad immigration principles,
including a path to legal status for those here illegally.

But Mr. Speaker, there already are numerous paths to legal status for
those here illegally.

Speaker John Boehner’s leadership team introduced
the principles at their annual policy retreat here. Top Republicans circulated
a tightly held one-page memo titled “standards for immigration
reform” toward the tail-end of a day that include strategy conversations about
Obamacare, the economy and the national debt.

In
the private meeting where the language was introduced, Boehner (R-Ohio) told
Republicans that the standards are “as far as we are willing to go.”

And Mr. Speaker, they
go way too far.

The strategy marks a shift for
House Republicans. In 2013, Boehner’s chamber ignored the bipartisan
immigration reform bill passed by the Senate. But toward the end of last year
and early this year, Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Whip Kevin
McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) began hashing out this approach
to rally Republicans toward reform.

. . .

Some Republicans fear of the
political fallout from immigration reform, but the proposal suggests GOP
leaders are taking the long view: Republicans need to woo the booming Hispanic
population to stay relevant.

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Ann Coulter has had access to a
report on immigration by Phyllis Schlafly. Until Schlafly’s report is released,
here are some excerpts from Coulter’s Townhall column yesterday:

GOP Crafts Plan to
Wreck the Country, Lose Voters

As House Republicans prepare to sell out the country on immigration this week,
Phyllis Schlafly has produced a stunning report on how immigration is changing
the country. The report is still embargoed, but someone slipped me a copy, and
it's too important to wait.

Leave aside the harm cheap labor being dumped on the country
does to the millions of unemployed Americans. What does it mean for the
Republican Party?

According to a Harris poll, 81 percent of native-born citizens
think the schools should teach students to be proud of being American. Only 50
percent of naturalized U.S. citizens do.

While 67 percent of native-born Americans believe our
Constitution is a higher legal authority than international law, only 37
percent of naturalized citizens agree.

No wonder they vote 2-1 for the Democrats.

The two largest immigrant groups, Hispanics and Asians, have
little in common economically, culturally or historically. But they both
overwhelmingly support big government, Obamacare, affirmative action and gun
control.

. . .

Also surprising, a Pew Research Center poll of all Hispanics,
immigrant and citizen alike, found that Hispanics take a dimmer view of
capitalism than even people who describe themselves as "liberal
Democrats." While 47 percent of self-described "liberal
Democrats" hold a negative view of capitalism, 55 percent of Hispanics do.

. . .

How are Republicans going to square that circle? It's not their
position on amnesty that immigrants don't like; it's Republicans' support for
small government, gun rights, patriotism, the Constitution and capitalism.

It seems a good sign that [President Obama] thought
it would be harmful to his cause to tell Americans anything specific that
he wants on immigration.

We had been told ahead of time that
he would play nice with his immigration statement so as not to
offend House Republicans who he is trying to win over. Still, I was a bit
surprised -- and I think encouraged -- by his timidity.

Republican Response Speech A
Bit More Troubling -- But Still Encouragingly Vague

Republicans picked one of the
House's top party leaders -- Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) -- to
deliver the response.

Because many news media have
practically declared the inevitability of House Republicans helping pass an
amnesty this year, I was much more interested to hear what she would say.

Since she didn't really mention
that many issues, it wasn't a good sign that she and her colleagues thought she
should make such a big deal about immigration reform. Still, hers was
also just a paragraph and more vague than specific:

And yes, it’s
time to honor our history of legal immigration. We’re working on a
step-by-step solution to immigration reform by first securing our borders and
making sure America will always attract the best, brightest, and hardest
working from around the world.

Why do I have a strong idea that
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers hasn't the first clue about our history of immigration or
what we should honor about it?

Is she aware of our immigration
history of a century ago, when mass immigration like we have today created
increasingly wide income disparity, a huge underclass and was a primary tool
for keeping the freed slaves and descendants of slaves in virtual servitude out
of the mainstream of American jobs? How does she propose to honor that history?

I
am particularly concerned by her call that we make sure that America
always attracts the "hardest working from around the world." Sounds like she is committed to helping
the corporate lobbies import any foreign worker who they think will work
harder, longer and at lower wages and benefits and working conditions than the
Americans who employers otherwise would have to recruit and train.

Is there any chance that a person
giving any of these addresses could note that the point of immigration policy
is to protect Americans.

But her rhetoric is vague enough
that the Republicans at their Chesapeake Bay retreat Wednesday through
Friday won't have to embarrass her or seem to reject her when they show no
enthusiasm for the GOP leadership's definition of "immigration
reform."

Applause During Obama's Immigration
Paragraph May Have Been Telling

Back when I was a congressional
correspondent sitting in the press box overlooking the SOTU proceedings, I took
a lot of notes on how and when particular Members responded to parts of the
speech. I had to depend on the camera feed for the TV networks, but I was
intrigued with what I saw from the top 3 House Republican leaders during the
President's immigration paragraph.

After his first sentence ending in
"fix our broken immigration system," Vice President Biden quickly
moved to his feet as did all Democrats in a pretty resounding ovation.

That
certainly put Speaker Boehner in a tough position. He knew the cameras were on him.
His corporate donors want him to give Mr. Obama what he wants. But Mr. Boehner
also had earlier this morning seen a strong negative reaction from his
Republican Members to the news reports about a possible GOP legalization plan.
Does the Speaker rehearse his reactions ahead of time? What would he do
on this one?

I was relieved that Mr. Boehner
didn't seem to have the slightest inclination to stand the way leaders of the
"other party" sometimes feel they have to when baseball, mom and apple
pie are being lauded. Instead, Mr. Boehner gave a non-committal facial
expression and slowly applauded while remaining seated.

The
camera swung to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor who was giving a moderate applause
while looking very serious. At the edge of the camera shot was the No. 3
House Republican Kevin McCarthy also being careful not to look too
enthusiastic, despite recently saying that he looked forward to moving legislation
that gives work permits and legalization to most illegal aliens.

It looked like maybe a half-dozen
Republicans were confident enough of their constituents to stand with the
Democrats in the ovation.

At the end of the President's
immigration paragraph, there was more heavy applause. The camera caught
Mr. Cantor not joining at first and then offering a pretty slow clap.

I'm not going to read too much into
what the various body language tells us about where these GOP leaders stand but
I think it tells us worlds about where they think their constituency
stands.

Time to call Speaker Boehner. Again. And send postcards to his
Ohio office (shorter security delay):

Kickoff for the 2014
Super Bowl is now [less than] two weeks away, and the NFL has already taken
possession of MetLife Stadium.

. . .

It’s been a long march up
the field already, marked by quiet, behind-the-scenes lobbying and phone calls,
getting the enthusiastic support of the state’s governor, and raising millions
from sponsors for what will be the most expensive Super Bowl in history.

The bidding
specifications for this year’s Super Bowl, obtained by The Star-Ledger,
mandated tens of millions in expenses that would be borne by whoever won the
honor of hosting the game. The 127-page document outlined everything from the
minimum size of the stadium (the NFL mandates a seating capacity of at least
70,000, after an allowance of 3,000 seats for camera and production locations),
to power and lighting needs.

Keep all those “NFL mandates in mind. Here’s another mandate
[emphasis added].

And it required a climate-controlled
domed stadium "if the historical average daily temperature over a
10-year period in the host city on the week of the game is below 50
degrees" — a mandate that needed agreement from the owners to at least a
one-time exception before a cold-weather Super Bowl with a view of the New York
skyline was even possible.

Obviously, as with Obamacare, some mandates are more equal than others.

[Jets owner Woody
Johnson] said the only real negative he heard about was the weather.

"If you embrace the
weather as we have, it doesn’t sound so bad. We’ve had bad weather at previous
Super Bowls," Johnson said he argued. The message was drilled home
repeatedly. "New York knows how to do this," he said he told other
owners. "We’re experts at it."

From NumbersUSA, a
501(c)(4) organization committed to legal and reduced immigration:

One Month Left To Comment On IRS Rule

There's a little more than one month left for anyone to submit a
comment to the IRS's proposed rule that would silence certain non-profit
organizations, including NumbersUSA. Thanks to those who have already joined
the more than 10,000 concerned citizens who have left a comment!

The proposed rule presents a real threat to our grade cards and
faxing in the months leading up to federal elections. If enacted, certain
non-profit organizations would not be able to even mention a candidate's name
within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of the general election - even if the
mention has nothing to do with the election itself. Nor, would we be able to
tell you when a Member of Congress who is also running for office is pushing an
amnesty.

This rule would require us to take down our grade cards and
non-partisan candidate comparison pages and shut down most of our activism
efforts during the election window.

Friday, January 24, 2014

Last week, the third webinar in
Tea Party Patriots' Article V Symposium highlighted some of the most popular amendments being
discussed in conservative circles. The final webinar is scheduled for next Tuesday and will continue to discuss possible amendments in an Article V
Amending Convention.

As the months have ticked
by and the ludicrously misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has
wobbled into reality, Americans have seen one promise after another come
crashing down.

. . .

But the people still have
some recourse — at least eventually. They can raise hell with Congress, which
is still at least occasionally responsive. They can appeal for help from the
courts.

Unless something that the
forces of dictatorship want is purposely put out of reach of Congress and the
courts.

Ladies and gentlemen,
meet the Independent
Payment Advisory Board — the relatively tiny, incredibly
powerful item in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that is
designed, on purpose, to have dictatorial powers.

Some people call it the
death panel, and it is, but there’s more to it than that. If it’s allowed to
work, it certainly will kill a lot of Americans — any sick person who is deemed
to be too great a drain on the federal government, an entity already deep in
debt.

Worse than that, though,
it’s a potential Constitution killer. There’s no way a nation like ours can
abide a monstrosity like the IPAB. If we end up being forced to abide it, we
will cease to be a nation like ours.

The IPAB is designed to
centralize the powers that this nation’s founders worked so hard to separate.

The IPAB will legislate,
setting all policy related to Medicare. It will be in a position to declare
what will be acceptable regarding health care costs, patient access and
quality.

. . .

The Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act says IPAB decisions are not subject to judicial review.

So, let’s recap. Here we
have a 15-member board appointed by the president that will make life-and-death
decisions about which treatments will be allowed to which kinds of patients and
what the people involved will pay and be paid, and the board is a law unto
itself. Congress has no practical way of stopping it and the courts can’t
intervene in what it does.

The time to stop the IPAB
is now, before it becomes invincible. Fortunately, a lawsuit that takes aim
directly at its consolidation of executive power, usurpation of legislative
power and denial of judicial power is working its way through the federal court
system.

The law that created the
IPAB is so blatantly unconstitutional, even the reliably wacky 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals should get this call right on Coons v.
Geithner.

Saturday, January 18, 2014

Fay Voshell at American Thinker takes a look at the IRS targeting of conservative groups and the
phony-baloney FBI “investigation” and whitewash of the IRS’s harassment activities:

According to the Justice
Department, an FBI investigation has found the IRS innocent of
criminal activity concerning the targeting of Tea Party and other conservative
groups.

Predictably, conservative
non-profits caught in the crosshairs of the IRS are angry. Fox News reports that
Jenny Beth Martin, the cofounder of the Tea Party Patriots, called the news
"absolutely outrageous," adding, "It only leads us to the point
where we can make guesses about their motives. Why are they protecting the IRS?"

Martin asks a good
question.

Frankly, it is difficult
for Tea Party and other conservatives to see the Justice Department's waiver of
culpability by means of a cursory FBI investigation as anything other than a
coverup.

Friday, January 17, 2014

Army Corps of Engineers criticized at meeting
for slow pace on carp issue

BY TOM HENRY, BLADE STAFF WRITER

CLEVELAND
— U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D., Toledo) got a round of applause on Thursday when
she criticized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the time it took reporting
to Congress the most viable ways to fend off Asian carp from the Great Lakes.

“I wish I could say the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers understands
the importance and urgency of the situation, but — alas — that does not seem to
be the case,” said Miss Kaptur, the ranking Democrat on the House Energy and
Water Committee that oversees the Corps’ budget.

“Indeed, the Corps of Engineers was negligent in addressing this
issue. It took a bill in Congress to wake up the Corps from its hibernation.
The Corps has done this region a disservice in failing to make a firm
recommendation about the best course of action to prevent an Asian carp
invasion. When the going got tough, the Corps — for whatever reason — punted,”
she said at a public meeting inside the Cleveland Public Library auditorium.

The meeting drew about 125 people. Those who attended — a
combination of fishermen, businessmen, and public officials — fought rush-hour
traffic and icy roads to get there.

Miss Kaptur and several other members of the Great Lakes
congressional delegation have said they favor a complete hydrologic separation
of the Great Lakes and Mississippi River watersheds by rerouting the Chicago
Area Waterway System that connects them.

But they anticipate an uphill fight in Congress because the Corps
stated in its long-awaited report that option would cost $18.4 billion and take
25 years. If approved, it would be one of North America’s largest engineering
projects.

At stake is the Great Lakes region’s fishery, valued at $7 billion
a year.

The project is pitched as more than one option to fend off Asian
carp and other invasive species.

In Chicago, it is being touted as a major investment to reduce
flooding and pollution threats that have existed for decades.

“We have to build a movement to save our Great Lakes,” Miss Kaptur
said. “We have to do the opposite of what the Corps did.”

Corps officials running the meeting did not respond as she spoke,
although they later said they understand a lot of Great Lakes residents are
frustrated by the Asian carp situation and want faster action.

The Corps announced at the outset of Thursday’s meeting it has
slated meetings in Erie, Pa., for Jan. 24 and New Orleans for Jan. 31 because
of strong interest in those areas. New Orleans wants to weigh in because of the
possible effect the project could have on the Mississippi River and the
shipping industry.

The next meeting is Tuesday in Ann Arbor. All meetings are from 4
to 7 p.m.

One of the first speakers Thursday was Ohio Attorney General Mike
DeWine, who said he arrived “with a great deal of frustration” because of
delays and because of litigation that Ohio, Michigan, New York, Minnesota, and
Wisconsin initiated against the federal government and the state of Illinois
over the matter. Illinois has resisted calls to temporarily close the
Chicago-area locks, citing the need to save jobs.

“Some of us feel nothing is going to work except a complete
separation. We do not want to be in a position someday where there is no more
sport-fishing,” Mr. DeWine, a Republican and a former U.S. senator from Ohio,
said.

As he left the meeting, Mr. DeWine told The Blade he remains in
favor of a complete separation, despite its costs and length of time it would
take.

The Corps said during most of that 25-year construction period,
new reservoirs and tunnels in the Chicago area would be built to prevent
flooding and improve water quality.

Mr. DeWine also implored the White House to pick up the pace.

“Now that this study’s finally done, it’s time to do something.
Let’s not take another six months,” Mr. DeWine said. “It’s going to be
expensive, but it’s going to be more expensive if we don’t [do a complete
separation].”

Several Cleveland-area fishermen and property owners testified in
favor of a hydrologic separation.

Sam Speck, a Republican who served eight years as Ohio Department
of Natural Resources director under former Gov. Bob Taft, said the $18.4
billion price tag is not as enormous as it sounds, given that it could be
phased in over 25 years.

“From everything I have seen to date, the most comprehensive
approach is the one we need to take,”Mr. Speck said.

Larry Fletcher, Ottawa County Visitors Bureau director, said
Ohio’s tourism and economy is supported in large part by the fishing industry.

But Mr. Fletcher said the state’s booming birding industry also
would take a big hit if the fishing industry collapses because of the
ecological connections between birds and fish. Lake Erie, he said, has become
one of the world’s Top 10 birding destinations.

Kristy Meyer, Ohio Environmental Council managing director of
agricultural and clean water programs, said nearly a third of Ohio’s $40
million tourism industry is supported by the state’s eight Great Lakes
counties.

“We need to move quickly. We need to move with interim steps [to
fend off Asian carp] that will put a complete separation in place,” Ms. Meyer
said.

U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat, and U.S. Sen. Rob Portman, a
Republican, did not attend the meeting. A staffer for Mr. Brown delivered a
statement in which he reiterated the senator’s support for a separation of the
watersheds.

So where does Sen. Portman stand? He led the charge to get action from . . . the Army Corps. of Engineers. Here's part of a news release on his website from last November:

Portman, Stabenow Lead Senate Effort to Stop Asian Carp

Call on the Army Corps of
Engineers to Identify Remaining Steps Needed to Permanently Cut Off Asian Carp
Entry Points into the Great Lakes

Washington, D.C.– Today, a
bipartisan group of all 16 Great Lake Senators, led by U.S. Senators Rob
Portman (R-Ohio) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan), joined in an ongoing effort
in the fight to stop Asian carp from destroying the Great Lakes ecosystem. In a
letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the bipartisan group of Senators
called on the Corps to identify remaining steps needed to permanently cut off
Asian carp entry points into the Great Lakes.

Last year, theStop Invasive Species Act,
written by Portman and Stabenow, was signed into law by President Obama.
The law requires the Army Corps of Engineers to present Congress, by the end of
the year, with a report (known as the GLMRIS report) on possible strategies to
permanently prevent Asian carp from entering the Great Lakes. Today’s
bipartisan action urges the Corps to outline the steps it will take once that
report is submitted to determine the best approach among the possible options
so work can begin as soon as possible.

The Great Lakes
Senators’ letter reads in part: “It is our expectation that the Corps
will work with Congress, our staff, and regional stakeholders before and after
the report is issued so that we can expeditiously determine how to best move
forward with a comprehensive approach to address Asian Carp and other aquatic
invasive species. We ask you to identify how you intend to work with
stakeholders on a comprehensive alternative that will maintain commerce,
enhance and not degrade water quality, and permanently safeguard the Great
Lakes from Asian carp and other invasive species following the release of the
GLMRIS report.… Upon release of the GLMRIS report, it is imperative that the
Corps continue its evaluation process under existing authority so that we can
move very quickly on a comprehensive approach to best protect the environmental
and economic health of the Great Lakes and Mississippi River.”

Democrats are working hard
to make sure conservative groups are silenced in the 2014 midterms.

President
Obama and Democrats have been at great pains to insist they knew nothing about
IRS targeting of conservative 501(c)(4) nonprofits before the 2012 election.
They've been at even greater pains this week to ensure that the same
conservative groups are silenced in the 2014 midterms.

That's
the big, dirty secret of the omnibus negotiations. As one of the only bills
destined to pass this year, the omnibus was—behind the scenes—a flurry of horse
trading. One of the biggest fights was over GOP efforts to include language to
stop the IRS from instituting a new round of 501(c)(4) targeting. The White
House is so counting on the tax agency to muzzle its political opponents that
it willingly sacrificed any manner of its own priorities to keep the muzzle in
place.

. . .

The
fight was sparked by a new rule that the Treasury Department and the IRS
introduced during the hush of Thanksgiving recess, ostensibly to
"improve" the law governing nonprofits. What the rule in fact does is
re-categorize as "political" all manner of educational activities
that 501(c)(4) social-welfare organizations currently engage in.

It's IRS targeting all over again, only this time by
administration design and with the raw political goal—as House Ways and Means
Chairman Dave Camp (R., Mich.) notes—of putting "tea party groups out of
business."

. . .

With
one little IRS rule it can shut up hundreds of groups that pose a direct threat
by restricting their ability to speak freely in an election season about
spending or ObamaCare or jobs. And it gets away with it by positioning this new
targeting as a fix for the first round.

. . .

Mr.
Camp's committee has meanwhile noted that Treasury appears to have
reverse-engineered the carefully tailored rule—combing through the list of
previously targeted tea party groups, compiling a list of their main activities
and then restricting those functions.

And an
IRS rule that purports to—as Mr. Werfel explained—"improve our work in the
tax-exempt area" completely ignores the biggest of political players in
the tax-exempt area: unions. The guidance is directed only at 501(c)(4)
social-welfare groups—the tax category that has of late been flooded by
conservative groups. Mr. Obama's union foot soldiers—which file under 501(c)(5)—can
continue playing in politics.

Treasury
is also going to great lengths to keep secret the process behind its rule.
Cleta Mitchell, an attorney who represents targeted tea party groups, in early
December filed a Freedom of Information Act request with Treasury and the IRS,
demanding documents or correspondence with the White House or outside groups in
the formulation of this rule. By law, the government has 30 days to respond.
Treasury sent a letter to Ms. Mitchell this week saying it wouldn't have her documents
until April—after the rule's comment period closes. It added that if she didn't
like it, she can "file suit." The IRS has yet to respond.

Mr.
Camp has now authored stand-alone legislation to rein in the IRS, though the
chance of Majority Leader Harry
Reid (D., Nev.) allowing a Senate vote is approximately equal
to that of the press corps paying attention to this IRS rule.